Commodity securities trades

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the 45-day range ceiling, the implicit 'latest day' fallback, the exact row contents (close, last, change vs previous close, trades, volume, value, low, high) and the unit convention (Rial per unit). Those are real behavioural constraints an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then default behaviour, then return shape, then sibling routing — a logical order for an agent to consume. Dense but every sentence carries information; nothing repeats the name or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and a 100%-covered schema, the description closes the remaining gaps: what a row contains, what units prices are in, and what happens when dates are omitted. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics the schema does not: the date pair operates as a range with a hard 45-day maximum and a 'no dates means latest day' default, which changes how an agent should populate date_from/date_to. It does not elaborate on how sort interacts with a date range, so not quite a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource (daily trades of salaf, commodity deposit certificates and commodity funds) with a concrete verb-and-scope framing, and gives two natural-language queries that pin down the intent exactly. It also explicitly differentiates from ime_certificates and ime_board, so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States the default behaviour with no dates (latest trading day), the behaviour with dates (every day in range, capped at 45), and names two alternatives with the exact condition that selects each — gold bar/coin/silver continuous certificates go to ime_certificates, live bid/ask goes to ime_board. That is explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and where-else.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.